Why were these thrown out?

[BeBMan]

The US has led international condemnation of Israel after it evicted nine Palestinian families living in two houses in occupied East Jerusalem.

Washington said the action was not in keeping with Israel's obligations under the so-called "road map" to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Jewish settlers moved into the houses almost immediately.

Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, a move not recognised by the world community.

The removal of the 53 people was also condemned by the United Nations, the Palestinians and the UK government.

Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said he was outraged at the action.

"Israel is once again showing its utter failure to respect international law," he said.

"New settlers from abroad are accommodating themselves and their belongings in the Palestinian houses and 19 newly homeless children will have nowhere to sleep."

'Deplorable'

The operation to evict the Palestinians from the Sheikh Jarrah district of the city was carried out before dawn on Sunday by police clad in black riot gear.

It followed a ruling by Israel's Supreme Court that Jewish families owned the land. Israel wants to build a block of 20 apartments in the area.

The families' belongings were put on the street - 2/08/09
The families' belongings were put on the street

"I deplore today's totally unacceptable actions by Israel," the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert H Serry said.

"These actions are contrary to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions related to occupied territory.

"These actions heighten tensions and undermine international efforts to create conditions for fruitful negotiations to achieve peace."

The UK government said the Israeli action was "incompatible with the Israeli professed desire for peace".

"We urge Israel not to allow the extremists to set the agenda," the British Consulate in East Jerusalem said.

Sovereignty 'unquestionable'

Israel considers a united Jerusalem to be the capital of the state of Israel.

"Our sovereignty over it is unquestionable," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last month.

"We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and buy [homes] anywhere in Jerusalem."

The BBC's Tim Franks in Jerusalem says the houses are in what is probably the most contested city on earth and the diplomatic ripples from the evictions will spread.

There are an estimated 250,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem and 200,000 Jews.

Whas there another reason than some settlers wanting these homes for themselves? I mean that doesn't strike me as the strongest case for action....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8180743.stm

[Solomwi]

Because they were living on someone else's property without permission, according to the Israeli Supreme Court.

[BeBMan]

Well, that's nearly as cool as Russia giving out passports to anyone in other countries.

[Solomwi]

Well, that's nearly as cool as Russia giving out passports to anyone in other countries.

Assuming the Jewish families' claims to the property had merit, eviction was a proper and perfectly ordinary remedy.

[BeBMan]

Assuming the Jewish families' claims to the property had merit, eviction was a proper and perfectly ordinary remedy.

Which is why I was asking for the reason ... that the court ruled like it did is known from the article.

[Solomwi]

Which is why I was asking for the reason ... that the court ruled like it did is known from the article.

But that the court ruled like it did is the reason, and your characterization of "some settlers wanting these homes for themselves" indicated that you had overlooked that reason. The reason behind the court's decision is a different question. Here's the best rundown I've found on it, from the Jerusalem Post:

Lamenting the court's decision, Hanoun called the Jewish claimants' documents "forgeries", and said his family had brought papers from the Turkish archives in Istanbul, proving their ownership of the property dated back to Ottoman rule.

"But in the court they told us it was too late," Hanoun said. "What does that mean too late? If a person was sentenced to hang, and at the last minute you brought evidence that showed he was innocent, would you still hang him?"

The Jewish families and the organization that supported their legal efforts, Nahalat Shimon International, have not made themselves available for comment, but have maintained in previous court hearings that the homes were owned by Jews dating back to the late 19th century, and were abandoned during a spate of Arab attacks in the area in the 1920s and '30s.

According to a report issued in May by Ir Amim, a non-profit group that engages Israeli-Palestinian issues in the capital, the Jordanian government took control of these plots under the Enemy Property Law during its rule from 1948 to 1967.

In 1956, 28 Palestinian families who had been receiving refugee assistance from UNRWA were selected to benefit from a relief project, in which they forfeited their refugee aid and moved into homes built on "formerly Jewish property leased by the Custodian of Enemy Property to the Ministry of Development", the Ir Amim report states.

The agreement stipulated that the ownership of the homes was to be put in the families' names - a step that never took place.

In 1972, two Israeli organizations - the Sephardic Community Committee and the Knesset Yisrael Committee - began notifying the residents that they owed rent, and initiated a process with the Israel Lands Administration to register the land in their names, also based on 19th-century Ottoman-era documents.

In 1982, the two committees brought a lawsuit against 23 families for rent delinquency.

Itzhak Toussia-Cohen, the lawyer representing the Palestinians, did not contest the legitimacy of the committees' ownership claims, and instead arrived at a court-ordered settlement - a binding agreement that can be appealed only if proven to be based on false grounds - that secured "protected tenancy" status for the residents.

The families claim Toussia-Cohen did not have their authorization to make this agreement, but it has served as the precedent for rulings on subsequent appeals, including the present-day cases.

While it remains unclear when Nachalat Shimon entered the picture, it became part of the legal proceedings in 2003, when it filed a joint case with the committees against the state and the Kurd family - one of the original families to be sued for rent delinquency and eviction, and who was eventually evicted from their home as well.

The years since have resulted in a slew of legal battles between the two sides, now culminating in the eviction of neighborhood residents.

[BeBMan]

But that the court ruled like it did is the reason, and your characterization of "some settlers wanting these homes for themselves" indicated that you had overlooked that reason.

No, it was worded as a question including literally "was there another reason". And those settlers obviously *wanted* those homes, otherwise they wouldn't have moved in there.

The reason behind the court's decision is a different question. Here's the best rundown I've found on it, from the Jerusalem Post:

Thanks for the article.

[KrazyHorse]

No, it was worded as a question including literally "was there another reason". And those settlers obviously *wanted* those homes, otherwise they wouldn't have moved in there.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The article that you YOURSELF quoted gives the legal reason for the eviction as the evictees' illegal occupancy of somebody else's land.

Whether or not settlers wanted the land has nothing to do with the right of the evictees to stay on the land without permission.

[Solomwi]

No, it was worded as a question including literally "was there another reason". And those settlers obviously *wanted* those homes, otherwise they wouldn't have moved in there.



Thanks for the article.

Right, another reason other than the settlers wanting the homes. That other reason, which your question indicated you had not seen (otherwise why ask it) was that the court ruled the settlers had legal title to occupy the homes. Without legal title, the settlers wanting to live there isn't sufficient to support the evictions. Your second sentence indicates that your question was born of a sense that the evictions might have been weakly supported. Given all of that, "the court ruled that the land actually belongs to the settlers" makes sense as an answer to your question.

You're welcome. See, I'm not just being a dick here.

[BeBMan]

No, it was worded as a question including literally "was there another reason". And those settlers obviously *wanted* those homes, otherwise they wouldn't have moved in there.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. The article that you YOURSELF quoted gives the legal reason for the eviction as the evictees' illegal occupancy of somebody else's land.

Yes. But if I ask why there were thrown out the answer "because a court ruled that way" doesn't really explain much about the background. My question was from the start about the broader background indeed. Esp. since the article included the court bit.

Whether or not settlers wanted the land has nothing to do with the right of the evictees to stay on the land without permission.

I included this in my last post because Solomwi's post before sounded to me as if it was some kind of unfair to speak of the settlers wanting those homes for themselves.

Right, another reason other than the settlers wanting the homes. That other reason, which your question indicated you had not seen (otherwise why ask it) was that the court ruled the settlers had legal title to occupy the homes. Without legal title, the settlers wanting to live there isn't sufficient to support the evictions.

You just assume my question was only about the immediate reason for the action and that I had not seen the court bit. I can assure you I have.

Your second sentence indicates that your question was born of a sense that the evictions might have been weakly supported. Given all of that, "the court ruled that the land actually belongs to the settlers" makes sense as an answer to your question.

Given the number of negative reactions to the decision I thought it would be nice to know the reason for it.

[DinoDoc]

I included this in my last post because Solomwi's post before sounded to me as if it was some kind of unfair to speak of the settlers wanting those homes for themselves.

That seems like a good enough reason to kick them out if the settlers had title to the land though.

[Sava]

That seems like a good enough reason to kick them out if the settlers had title to the land though.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Why were these thrown out?

Because Palestinians aren't entitled to human rights in Israel or their own land.

[Solomwi]

Yes. But if I ask why there were thrown out the answer "because a court ruled that way" doesn't really explain much about the background. My question was from the start about the broader background indeed. Esp. since the article included the court bit.

If you want to ask about the background, doing so is easy enough. We're not mind-readers, though, so you have to actually do so.

I included this in my last post because Solomwi's post before sounded to me as if it was some kind of unfair to speak of the settlers wanting those homes for themselves.

You also included it in your original question. What the settlers want is immaterial except for the purpose of starting the legal proceedings.

You just assume my question was only about the immediate reason for the action and that I had not seen the court bit. I can assure you I have.

No. I answered your question as it was asked. Like I've said before, why the court ruled the way it did is a different question than why the Arabs were evicted.

Given the number of negative reactions to the decision I thought it would be nice to know the reason for it.

And I agree. I'm almost curious enough to want to research the applicable law so that I can apply my own analysis to what the article I posted gives. Almost. Besides, if the Arabs themselves didn't dispute Jewish ownership in earlier proceedings, I'm inclined to give the court the benefit of the doubt (though that's certainly a prima facie inclination).

[Kitschum]

There is nothing like usucaption iN Israel?

Anyway the real story here is Israel's illegal annexation of East Jerusalem.